- Wiley Online Library

Depth of Subchondral Perforation Influences the Outcome of Bone
Marrow Stimulation Cartilage Repair
Hongmei Chen,1 Caroline D. Hoemann,1 Jun Sun,2 Anik Chevrier,1 Marc D. McKee,3 Matthew S. Shive,2 Mark Hurtig,4
Michael D. Buschmann1
1
Department of Chemical Engineering and Institute of Biomedical Engineering, Ecole Polytechnique of Montreal, PO 6079 Station Centre-ville,
Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3C 3A7, 2Piramal Healthcare (Canada), Montreal, Quebec, Canada, 3Faculty of Dentistry, McGill University,
Montreal, Quebec, Canada, 4Department of Clinical Studies, University of Guelph, Guelph, Canada
Received 15 October 2010; accepted 24 January 2011
Published online 24 February 2011 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI 10.1002/jor.21386
ABSTRACT: Subchondral drilling and microfracture are bone marrow stimulation techniques commonly used for the treatment of
cartilage defects. Few studies to date have examined the technical variants which may influence the success of the cartilage repair
procedures. This study compared the effect of hole depth (6 mm vs. 2 mm) and hole type (drill vs. microfracture) on chondral defect
repair using a mature rabbit model. Results from quantitative histomorphometry and histological scoring showed that deeper versus
shallower drilling elicited a greater fill of the cartilage defect with a more hyaline character in the repair matrix indicated by significant
improvement (p ¼ 0.021) in the aggregate measure of increased cartilage defect fill, increased glycosaminoglycan and type II collagen
content and reduced type I collagen content of total soft repair tissue. Compared to microfracture at the same 2 mm depth, drilling to
2 mm produced a similar quantity and quality of cartilage repair (p ¼ 0.120) according to the aggregate indicator described above. We
conclude that the depth of bone marrow stimulation can exert important influences on cartilage repair outcomes. ß 2011 Orthopaedic
Research Society. Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Orthop Res 29:1178–1184, 2011
Keywords: bone marrow stimulation; microfracture; Pridie drilling; articular cartilage repair; subchondral bone
Articular cartilage defects are a common pathology1
that if left untreated, can progress to osteoarthritis
resulting in significant musculoskeletal morbidity. The
poor intrinsic healing capacity of articular cartilage is
partly the result of its avascular nature, which abrogates wound repair processes at the site of cartilage
injury, along with the limited ability of resident chondrocytes to effect tissue repair.2,3 Bone marrow stimulation, a widely practiced treatment option, introduces
perforations in the subchondral bone and initiates
bleeding, thereby exposing the debrided cartilage
lesion to the underlying bone marrow stroma which
contains a repository of pluripotential cells capable of
repairing soft and hard tissues.4 Providing access
channels to marrow stroma and allowing cell
migration into the articular defect are essential features of marrow stimulation-based cartilage repair.
Bone marrow stimulation can be achieved by
abrasion arthroplasty,5 subchondral drilling (DRL),6
and microfracture (MFX).7 Subchondral DRL introduced by Pridie in 19596 was prevalent as a treatment
for various osteochondral defects for decades.5,8–10
Presently, Steadman’s MFX approach7 has become a
first-line treatment option for full-thickness articular
cartilage defects of the knee with significant symptomatic relief and improvement of knee function, especially for the first 2 years postoperative.11 Previous
marrow stimulation studies have demonstrated the
importance of controlling defect debridement, integrity
of subchondral bone plate, and postoperative rehabilitation.12,13 However, no clinical and animal studies
Correspondence to: Michael D. Buschmann (T: 514-340-4711 ext.
4931; F: 514-340-2980; E-mail: [email protected])
ß 2011 Orthopaedic Research Society. Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
1178
JOURNAL OF ORTHOPAEDIC RESEARCH AUGUST 2011
specifically controlled the perforation depth, nor was
its effect on cartilage repair outcomes examined.
Additionally, direct comparison of MFX to DRL has
not been performed to date.
It has been stated that by using an awl, MFX avoids
thermal damage to subchondral bone, thus producing
less bone necrosis and is therefore potentially superior
to Pridie drilling which employs a hand-driven or
motorized drill.7,13 Nonetheless, results from our
recent study suggest that microfracture is not superior
to drilling in terms of reducing initial bone necrosis.14
We also found that in acute defects, holes drilled
deeper to 6 mm versus 2 mm provided greater access
to marrow compartments. The objective of this study
was to examine the influence of these surgical options
on mid-term cartilage repair outcome. We tested the
specific hypotheses that deep DRL generates repair
tissue of a greater quantity and higher quality than
shallow DRL and that DRL improves cartilage repair
compared to MFX, the latter by removing dead bone
rather than compacting it around the periphery of the
hole as we recently found.14 We sought to establish
relationships between features of acute perforations
and defect healing at 3 months in rabbits, with the
ultimate goal of improved understanding and optimization of marrow stimulation techniques.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Experimental Design and Surgical Procedure
The research protocol was reviewed and approved by an
institutional ethics committee for animal research. Sixteen
skeletally mature (9–10 months old) female New Zealand
White rabbits were randomly assigned to two groups, each
(N ¼ 8) comparing two marrow stimulation techniques bilaterally. As depicted in Figure 1A, Group I received deep drilling (6 mm) on the left knees and shallow drilling (2 mm) on
SURGICAL PARAMETERS IN BONE MARROW STIMULATION
1179
Histoprocessing, Histostaining, and Immunohistochemistry
Collected femur ends were fixed in 4% paraformaldehyde/1%
glutaraldehyde/0.1 M sodium cacodylate (pH 7.3), decalcified
in HCl and OCT-embedded. Transverse sections were collected systematically from three levels at the locations of the
original distal and proximal holes, and midway between the
holes in all defects. Safranin-O (Saf-O)/Fast Green staining
and immunostaining for collagen type I (Col1) and collagen
type II (Col2) were performed as previously described.16
Figure 1. (A) Study design and pattern of marrow stimulation
holes (circles) on cartilage defects (square). Group I compares
deep drill holes (DRL6/GrpI, 6 mm) to shallow drill holes (DRL2/
GrpI, 2 mm), and Group II compares MFX2/GrpII to DRL2/GrpII
holes both at 2 mm deep. (B) Schematics of tissue repair regions
used in histomorphometry where the orange polygon refers to
total soft tissue volume and the red outline defines the original
articular defect projected from adjacent cartilage.
the right (referred to as DRL6/GrpI and DRL2/GrpI, respectively) while Group II animals had DRL holes on the left
knees and MFX holes on the right knee, both at the same
depth of 2 mm (referred to as DRL2/GrpII and MFX2/GrpII,
respectively). Each animal underwent sequential bilateral
arthrotomies. A cartilage defect (4 mm 4 mm) was created
using a flat surgical blade (Fine Science Tools, Inc., North
Vancouver, Canada) in the central trochlear groove with
complete debridement of the calcified cartilage to expose subchondral bone with visible punctuate bleeding since calcified
cartilage is known to block repair.15 Effort was made to
retain an intact bone plate as much as possible. DRL or MFX
techniques were employed to create four holes in each defect
(Fig. 1A) by using miniature DRL bits (burr diameter
0.9 mm) that permitted depth control of DRL holes to either
6 or 2 mm, or by using a custom-machined MFX awl with a
mallet that pierced conically shaped holes 2 mm deep with a
1 mm base diameter.14 Cylindrical DRL holes were made
using a high-speed microdrill (Fine Science Tools, Inc.) under
continuous irrigation with precooled sterile Ringer’s lactate
solution (RLS) from a squeeze bottle, which limits thermal
necrosis.14 After drilling, the defect was also rinsed extensively with RLS to remove loose bone and cartilage debris.
The patella was then repositioned and the knee closed in
sutured layers. The knees were allowed unrestricted motion
after the animals recovered from anesthesia. All animals
received a fentanyl transdermal patch (Duragesic 25, Janssen-Ortho, Inc., Toronto, Canada) for extended analgesia,
and were sacrificed 3 months postoperatively.
Histological Scoring and Quantitative Histomorphometry
All analyses were carried out on three sections per defect collected from the aforementioned three levels. O’Driscoll histological scoring17 was performed by two independent blinded
observers on Saf-O-stained sections. Quantitative histomorphometry on Saf-O-stained sections was performed using
Northern Eclipse software (V8.0, Empix Imaging, Inc., Mississauga, ON, Canada). The total region of soft tissue repair
was defined and measured as total soft tissue volume (orange
polygon in Fig. 1B). Percent Saf-Oþ repair tissue in total soft
tissue volume was obtained by Northern Eclipse threshold
analysis. The projected cartilage defect (red lines Fig. 1B)
was established from the flanking articular cartilage, taking
into account the curvature of the trochlear groove and thickness of the adjacent cartilage. %Fill was defined as percent
tissue repair volume within the projected defect based on 2D
cross-sectional areas of the projected defect area in histology
sections from three distinct sites in each defect. Basal attachment of soft repair tissue was quantified with Northern
Eclipse18 as percent attached over the total length of the
interface between soft repair tissue and subchondral bone.
Percent tissue volume positive for collagen type I and for collagen type II in the total soft tissue volume was quantified
using Bioquant Osteo II software (V8.0, Bioquant Image
Analysis Corp., Nashville, TN).
Statistical Analysis
Statistical analyses were performed with repeated measures
in the Generalized Linear Model, Statistica (version 9.0,
Statsoft, Inc., Tulsa, OK). Differences in histomorphometric
parameters were compared between surgical treatments
(DRL6 vs. DRL2 and DRL2 vs. MFX2) with treatment and
animal taken as predictors, thus benefiting from the bilateral
design where two treatments are compared in the same
animal, thus reducing the effect of inter-animal variability.
%Fill, %Saf-O, %Col2, and %Col1 were also analyzed
together as an aggregate indicator of overall quantity and
quality of repair cartilage by specifying two repeatedmeasure variables—the histomorphometric parameter and
the section number (1–3). O’Driscoll scores were similarly
analyzed with each of the three sections scored by two
blinded observers constituting six repeated measures. Spearman rank order correlations between histomorphometric
parameters were computed. p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
RESULTS
General Observations
After 3 months of repair, Saf-O staining of proteoglycan-rich repair tissue was detected mostly in the deepmid region of repair tissue (Figs. 2A–C and 3A,C,D).
Immuno-reactive Col2 was more widespread in the
repair matrix, covering a larger area than Saf-O stain
JOURNAL OF ORTHOPAEDIC RESEARCH AUGUST 2011
1180
CHEN ET AL.
in all treatment groups (compare E–H to A–D in
Figs. 2 and 3). The superficial repair tissue in most
specimens (81%) contained Col1 and had diminished
intensity or depleted Saf-O stain indicating a component of fibrocartilaginous repair although three
specimens were uniformly stained with Col2 with no
Col1 and possessed quite hyaline matrix characteristics (example in Fig. 2G,K). The tidemark and zonal
organization of articular cartilage were not yet reestablished at the 3-month time point. Repair tissues
frequently failed to bond with adjacent cartilage
(Figs. 2A–D and 3A–D), as reflected by low O’Driscoll
bonding scores (<1) for all treatment groups. Percent
basal attachment of the repair tissue to the underlying
bone was 80% with no significant differences among
treatments.
Figure 2. Safranin-O/Fast Green staining (A–D), collagen type II (E–H), and collagen type I (I–L) immunostaining in Group I comparing deep 6 mm (DRL6) to shallow 2 mm (DRL2) drilling, after 3 months of repair. The images shown in the top (A–B, E–F, and I–J)
panel were taken from representative sections from bilateral defects in the same animal, whereas those in the middle panel (C–D, G–
H, and K–L) were from another animal in the same group. M: histomorphometric analyses of soft tissue repair. Significant effect
(p ¼ 0.015, N ¼ 8) for DRL6 versus DRL2. Improvement in tissue repair due to deep compared to shallow drilling was significant
(p ¼ 0.021) when the four parameters (%Fill, %Saf O, %Col2, and %Col1) were analyzed together as repeated-measure variables for an
aggregate indicator of overall repair quantity and quality.
JOURNAL OF ORTHOPAEDIC RESEARCH AUGUST 2011
SURGICAL PARAMETERS IN BONE MARROW STIMULATION
1181
Figure 3. Safranin-O/Fast Green staining (A–D), collagen type II (E–H), and collagen type I (I–L) immunostaining in Group II
comparing drilling (DRL2) to microfracture (MFX2), both perforated at 2 mm depth, after 3 months of repair. The images shown in the
top (A–B, E–F, and I–J) panel were taken from representative sections from bilateral defects in the same animal, whereas those in the
middle panel (C–D, G–H, and K–L) were from another animal in the same group. M: histomorphometric analyses of soft tissue repair.
Improvement in tissue repair due to drilling compared to microfracture was not statistically significant (p ¼ 0.120) when the four
parameters (%Fill, %Saf O, %Col2, and %Col1) were analyzed together as repeated-measure variables for an aggregate indicator of
overall repair quantity and quality.
Deeper Drilling Produced Statistically Superior Cartilage
Repair than Shallower Drilling
Quantitative histomorphometry revealed that compared to shallow DRL2, deep DRL6 produced 85.6%
versus 65.3% of %Fill (p ¼ 0.015), 41.1% versus 29.9%
of %Saf O (p ¼ 0.125), 80.0% versus 65.6% of %Col2
(p ¼ 0.094), and 12.3% versus 20.7% of %Col1
(p ¼ 0.251; Fig. 2M), with only %Fill being statistically
significant at this small sample size (N ¼ 8). The
trending of increased Saf-O stain for DRL6 versus
DRL2 was corroborated by O’Driscoll matrix stain
scoring (p ¼ 0.106). Improvement in tissue repair
JOURNAL OF ORTHOPAEDIC RESEARCH AUGUST 2011
1182
CHEN ET AL.
due to deep versus shallow drilling was significant
(p ¼ 0.021) when four parameters (%Fill, %Saf-O,
%Col2, and %Col1) were analyzed together as
repeated-measure variables as an aggregate indicator
of overall repair quantity and quality. Additionally,
%Fill was positively correlated with %Saf-O and
%Col2, and negatively correlated with %Col1. These
weak (r2 ¼ 0.2–0.3) but statistically significant
(p < 0.05) correlations suggested that these correlated hyaline matrix characteristics are linked
and can be improved together by specific surgical
techniques.
Drilling Did Not Statistically Improve Cartilage Repair
Compared to Microfracture
Our data showed that compared to MFX2, DRL2 elicited 56% more total soft repair tissue (p ¼ 0.176,
orange polygon in Fig. 1B, data not shown); within
this soft repair tissue matrix DRL2 elicited a 55%
increase in %Saf-O (p ¼ 0.223), a higher %Col2
(p ¼ 0.109), and similar %Col1 (10%) (Fig. 3M) compared to MFX2. These differences were not statistically significant. %Fill within the projected cartilage
defect (red lines, Fig. 1B) was similar in both DRL2
and MFX2 repair. Improvement in tissue repair due to
DRL compared to MFX was also not statistically significant (p ¼ 0.120) when these four parameters were
analyzed together as repeated-measure variables for
an aggregate indicator of overall repair quantity and
quality, consistent with O’Driscoll scoring results. Correlation analysis revealed that %Saf-O in MFX2
repair was positively correlated with total soft tissue
volume and negatively correlated with %Col1; the latter correlation was also seen in DRL2 repair. These
correlations were statistically significant but weak
(p < 0.05, r2 ¼ 0.2–0.5). Additionally, %Fill and %Col2
appeared to be higher for DRL2 repair in Group II
than in Group I (compare Figs. 2M to 3M). However,
these differences are difficult to interpret due to high
inter-animal variability and the fact that a bilateral
comparison is not possible when comparing knees in
different animals.
DISCUSSION
Surgical technique is expected to be an important factor in determining the success of bone marrow stimulation procedures. It is now well established that the
calcified cartilage layer should be removed to provide
access to bone marrow which is the principle source of
repair cells.15,19,20 To our knowledge, the present
study is the first to investigate the effect of subchondral perforation depth on cartilage repair outcomes,
and to directly compare drilling and microfracture
techniques. The results confirmed our hypotheses that
drilling deeper increases cartilage repair quantity and
quality in a statistically significant manner; however,
we did not observe significant improvement in tissue
repair comparing drilling to microfracture at the same
2 mm penetration depth.
JOURNAL OF ORTHOPAEDIC RESEARCH AUGUST 2011
Bone marrow stimulation-based cartilage repair
relies on recruitment of marrow-derived mesenchymal
progenitor cells to heal the defects.4,21 Providing
access channels to marrow stroma is thus a prerequisite for these procedures. The improved repair
observed here in deeper drilling may result from
increased access to marrow compartments where the
6 mm holes have three times the surface area in contact with marrow compared to the 2 mm deep holes. In
addition, the epiphysial scar of the rabbit trochlea is
3 mm deep such that the deep holes penetrated
through it while the shallow holes did not.14 It has
been previously suggested that successful wound healing and cartilage repair relied on increased recruitment of bone marrow-derived mesenchymal cells21,22
and that different cell types may reside in specific
regions of the marrow.23 In this study, deep DRL created more access channels to the marrow and may
potentially recruit a greater number of cells and a
variety of cell types from the deep marrow stroma,
resulting in improved cartilage repair (Fig. 2). We
believe that the statistically significant one-third
increase in %Fill detected in the deeper DRL6 versus
the shallower DRL2 defects is functionally important
in terms of the ability of the repair tissue to bear load,
since many clinical marrow stimulation studies only
show partial fill of the cartilage lesion11 that is most
likely not effectively load-bearing. The higher %Col2
and %GAG and lower %Col1 observed in the DRL6
defects relative to DRL2 defects (Fig. 2) may also render the repair tissue more durable and able to bear
load.
There is abundant research addressing the concern
of thermal damage of bone due to drilling.24,25 Often
described is the use of Kirschner-wires, which have a
smooth surface without flutes and may then compress
bone debris without removal, leading to increased bone
density and increased heat due to friction.9,24 Of note,
while a variety of clinically available drill designs with
finely tuned parameters have been developed to reduce
heat generation,24,25 the older drilling technique using
Kirschner-wires is still practiced clinically.26 In our
study, we used burr-shaped drills which removed bone
debris effectively, along with continuous cool irrigation
to minimize heating. These aspects help limit necrosis
and preserve the vitality of surrounding bone according to our previous study,14 creating a favorable local
environment, without apparent thermal necrosis, to
attract reparative marrow cells for enhanced cartilage
repair.
Although our collective data did not show significant improvement in defect repair comparing DRL to
MFX at the same 2 mm depth, with a sample size of 8
and p ¼ 0.120 for overall repair quantity and quality,
repair matrix with hyaline-like or mixed hyaline/
fibrocartilage characteristics was observed in many
drilled defects (Figs. 2 and 3). Shapiro et al.4 also
reported hyaline-like repair following drilling with
good lateral integration and complete restoration of
SURGICAL PARAMETERS IN BONE MARROW STIMULATION
the subchondral tidemark and bone plate, but in young rabbits at 24 weeks postoperatively. Some of their
findings were in contrast to our observations of relatively poor basal and lateral integration regardless of
hole type and hole depth, possibly due to the ability of
the younger skeletally immature animals used previously to repair robustly. Poor cartilage repair outcomes after DRL observed previously in clinical
studies27,28 may have been due to incomplete debridement of the calcified layer or excessive removal of
subchondral bone. Some of the first clinical drilling
procedures with poor outcome also involved large
arthrotomies, concomitant synovectomies, meniscectomies, osteophyte, and cartilage shaving, along with
loss of a large volume of subchondral bone,27 pointing
out the importance of designing specific and well
controlled clinical studies of cartilage repair. Poor
repair reported from some animal studies29,30 may
have also been due to aggressive subchondral
invasion or ablation of the subchondral bone plate
(2 mm deep debridement29), leading to bone resorption, cyst formation and even collapse.18 These findings highlight the importance of preserving the
integrity of a healthy subchondral bone plate and
underlying trabecular structure in marrow stimulation
procedures.
Concerning animal models for cartilage repair studies, the use of skeletally immature rabbits is not
recommended since they display a very high propensity for spontaneous repair4,31,32 unlike that seen in
adult human cartilage repair. Our skeletally mature
rabbit model was carefully chosen and the study
design was based on simulating clinical microfracture
in a geometrically proportional manner to human.14
For example, our surgical tool design, defect and hole
pattern as well as their placement resulted in 17% of
the defect surface area being perforated over the entire
defect area, which is within the hole perforation
density range performed clinically (13–49%, estimated
from literature). We were also aware through our
unpublished findings of some potentially important
species differences which provide some justification for
the use of a mature rabbit model in cartilage repair. In
bone marrow stimulation-based repair, the state of the
subchondral bone, being the primary source of repair,
may be more important than the properties of remaining cartilage. We compared subchondral bone structure in human condyles33 to adult rabbit trochlea, and
found a surprising similarity in subchondral porosity,
pore surface area density and thickness of the bone
plate between two species. On the other hand, the subchondral bone in human chronic cartilage lesions and
in OA can become denser and more sclerotic34 and contain stem cell pools with less chondrogenic potential,35
which are different from our fresh defect model. To
better relate animal models to human repair, alternative injury-induced chronic cartilage defects could be
used in future studies.
1183
Our study revealed that the specific surgical technique used can influence cartilage repair outcomes in
an important manner. Drilling deeper to 6 mm versus
2 mm improved repair tissue quantity and quality in a
statistically significant fashion, while drilling compared to microfracture at the same 2 mm depth produced similar repair outcomes. Our results support
the notion that marrow stimulation procedures could
be further optimized in a clinical setting to improve
cartilage repair outcomes.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was supported by Canadian Institutes of Health
Research (CIHR), Canada Foundation for Innovation, Fonds
de la Recherche en Santé du Quebec (FRSQ, Groupe de
Recherche en Sciences et Technologies, and Bourse Chercheur Senior to CDH), and Piramal Healthcare, Canada.
Chen acknowledges postdoctoral fellowships from FRSQ,
CIHR, and Natural Sciences and Engineering Research
Council of Canada. We thank W. Ouyang, V. Lascau-Coman,
L. Dragomir, N. Tran-Khanh, and D. Grenier-Lévesque for
their assistance in this study.
REFERENCES
1. Widuchowski W, Widuchowski J, Trzaska T. 2007. Articular
cartilage defects: study of 25,124 knee arthroscopies. Knee
14:177–182.
2. Kellett CF, Boscainos PJ, Gross AE. 2006. Surgical options
for articular defects of the knee. Expert Rev Med Devices
3:585–593.
3. Newman AP. 1998. Articular cartilage repair. Am J Sports
Med 26:309–324.
4. Shapiro F, Koide S, Glimcher M. 1993. Cell origin and differentiation in the repair of full-thickness defects of articular
cartilage. J Bone Joint Surg Am 75A:532–553.
5. Johnson LL. 1986. Arthroscopic abrasion arthroplasty
historical and pathologic perspective: present status. Arthroscopy 2:54–69.
6. Pridie KH. 1959. A method of resurfacing osteoarthritic knee
joints. J Bone Joint Surg Br 41:618–619.
7. Steadman J, Rodkey W, Singleton S, et al. 1997. Microfracture technique for full-thickness chondral defects: technique
and clinical results. Oper Tech Orthop 7:300–304.
8. Insall JN. 1967. Intra-articular surgery for degenerative
arthritis of the knee. A report of the work of the late k. H.
Pridie. J Bone Joint Surg Br 49:211–228.
9. Puddu G, Cerullo G, Cipolla M, et al. 1998. Pridie drilling.
J Sports Traumatol Rel Res 20:49–60.
10. Bouwmeester P, Kuijer R, Homminga GN, et al. 2002.
A retrospective analysis of two independent prospective cartilage repair studies: autogenous perichondrial grafting versus subchondral drilling 10 years post-surgery. J Orthop Res
20:267–273.
11. Mithoefer K, McAdams T, Williams RJ, et al. 2009. Clinical
efficacy of the microfracture technique for articular cartilage
repair in the knee: an evidence-based systematic analysis.
Am J Sports Med 37:2053–2063.
12. Steadman J, Rodkey W, Briggs K. 2002. Microfracture to
treat full-thickness chondral defects: surgical technique,
rehabilitation, and outcomes. J Knee Surg 15:170–176.
13. Mithoefer K, Williams R, Warren R, et al. 2005. The microfracture technique for the treatment of articular cartilage
lesions in the knee. A prospective cohort study. J Bone Joint
Surg Am 87:1911–1920.
JOURNAL OF ORTHOPAEDIC RESEARCH AUGUST 2011
1184
CHEN ET AL.
14. Chen HM, Sun J, Hoemann CD, et al. 2009. Drilling and
microfracture lead to different bone structure and necrosis
during bone-marrow stimulation for cartilage repair.
J Orthop Res 27:1432–1438.
15. Frisbie DD, Morisset S, Ho CP, et al. 2006. Effects of calcified cartilage on healing of chondral defects treated with
microfracture in horses. Am J Sports Med 34:1824–1831.
16. Chevrier A, Rossomacha E, Buschmann MD, et al. 2005.
Optimization of histoprocessing methods to detect glycosaminoglycan, collagen type II, and collagen type I in decalcified
rabbit osteochondral sections. J Histotechnol 28:165–175.
17. O’Driscoll SW, Keeley FW, Salter RB. 1988. Durability of
regenerated articular cartilage produced by free autogenous
periosteal grafts in major full-thickness defects in joint surfaces under the influence of continuous passive motion. A
follow-up report at one year. J Bone Joint Surg Am 70:595–
606.
18. Hoemann CD, Sun J, McKee MD, et al. 2007. Chitosan-glycerol phosphate/blood implants elicit hyaline cartilage repair
integrated with porous subchondral bone in microdrilled
rabbit defects. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 15:78–89.
19. Hurtig MB, Fretz PB, Doige CE, et al. 1988. Effects of lesion
size and location on equine articular cartilage repair. Can J
Vet Res 52:137–146.
20. Shamis LD, Bramlage LR, Gabel AA, et al. 1989. Effect of
subchondral drilling on repair of partial-thickness cartilage
defects of third carpal bones in horses. Am J Sports Med
50:290–295.
21. Chevrier A, Hoemann CD, Sun J, et al. 2007. Chitosan-glycerol phosphate/blood implants increase cell recruitment,
transient vascularization and subchondral bone remodeling
in drilled cartilage defects. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 15:316–
327.
22. Colnot C, Huang S, Helms J. 2006. Analyzing the cellular
contribution of bone marrow to fracture healing using bone
marrow transplantation in mice. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 350:557–561.
23. Neumann K, Dehne T, Endres M, et al. 2008. Chondrogenic
differentiation capacity of human mesenchymal progenitor
JOURNAL OF ORTHOPAEDIC RESEARCH AUGUST 2011
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
cells derived from subchondral cortico-spongious bone.
J Orthop Res 26:1449–1456.
Karmani S, Lam F. 2004. The design and function of surgical drills and k-wires. Curr Orthop 18:484–490.
Augustin G, Davila S, Mihoci K, et al. 2008. Thermal osteonecrosis and bone drilling parameters revisited. Arch Orthop
Trauma Surg 128:71–77.
Pascarella A, Ciatti R, Pascarella F, et al. 2010. Treatment
of articular cartilage lesions of the knee joint using a modified AMIC technique. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc
18(4): 509–513.
Insall JN. 1967. Intra-articular surgery for degenerative
arthritis of the knee. A report of the work of the late K.H.
Pridie. J Bone Joint Surg Br 49:211–228.
Rozing PM, Insall J, Bohne WH. 1980. Spontaneous osteonecrosis of the knee. J Bone Joint Surg Am 62:2–7.
Kajiwara R, Ishida O, Kawasaki K, et al. 2005. Effective
repair of a fresh osteochondral defect in the rabbit knee joint
by articulated joint distraction following subchondral drilling. J Orthop Res 23:909–915.
Convery FR, Akeson WH, Keown GH. 1972. The repair of
large osteochondral defects: an experimental study in
horses. Clin Orthop 82:251–262.
Wei XC, Messner K. 1999. Maturation-dependent durability
of spontaneous cartilage repair in rabbit knee joint.
J Biomed Mat Res 46:539–548.
Wei XC, Gao JZ, Messner K. 1997. Maturation-dependent
repair of untreated osteochondral defects in the rabbit knee
joint. J Biomed Mat Res 34:63–72.
Tran-Khanh N, Hoemann CD, Lascau-Coman V, et al. 2009.
Stereological quantification of subchondral bone properties
in human osteochondral biopsies. In, 8th World Congress of
the International Cartilage Repair Society. Miami, USA.
Goldring MB, Goldring SR. 2010. Articular cartilage and
subchondral bone in the pathogenesis of osteoarthritis. In:
Zaidi M, editor. Skeletal biology and medicine. p 230–237.
Payne KA, Didiano DM, Chu CR. 2010. Donor sex and age
influence the chondrogenic potential of human femoral bone
marrow stem cells. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 18:705–713.